Post #3124417
2026-03-20 01:18 UTC
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz But in a more skeptical view one might argue that we have direct, incontrovertible access to very little information about the world, only our perceptions. Even an object that you see in front of you can be subject to optical illusions, or you could be hallucinating, etc. In this framing, one can only mostly make statements of belief or credence about the world. My point being mostly that even trying to define the scope to which to apply the two different concepts of probability is pretty difficult.
@davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz
Replies (1)
-
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-20 01:45
@internic@mathstodon.xyz @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz All very true, and important philosophically. But as practitioners, we must assume at least for the moment a number of pragmatic concerns, such as that reality is real, in some sense. In the same way, we should strive to keep distinct the different definitions of probability and related notions, for relevant pragmatic reasons, even when we don't (in those moments) care about philosophy for its own sake. Also related (when and if one cares), "das ding an sich": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself